Well done Richard and Aoife on your late show appearance

by SWP Stooge Fri Jan 17, 2003 19:38

I thought the SWP instructed their members to keep away from indymedia. Expulsion is most definitely on the cards. The SWP cannot have anyone wasting their time here when they should be recruiting from the anti-war movement. Once again three cheers for the SWP, after all they are the only ones building the anti-war movement.

by Brian Cahill Fri Jan 17, 2003 20:27

If you are going to stir shit at least stick to the facts. The Socialist Party is part of the Irish Anti-War Movement, has taken part in every demonstration issue and all of our branches are actively campaigning against the war - as are Socialist Youth branches.

A lot of different groups are involved in campaigning against the war, from the IAWM to the NGO Peace Alliance and the Grassroots Gathering. And that's a good thing.

by iosaf jedi of the long marches with SWM - 5th international Fri Jan 17, 2003 20:28

and it was cool.
and in Ireland great genius wrote and spoke for you.
and so keep on doing what you do.
i don´t like how you do it.
but at times you are the only ones who do it.
and hows the printer up north?

being nice to you.
spread this link.

http://sweden.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=35872&group=webcast

by Paul Kinsella - Irish Anti War Movement (Personal) Fri Jan 17, 2003 20:37 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9, Eire 087-9748511

The original posting is a load of bol**cks. Enough said!

by jedi of the constant almost one year comments. Fri Jan 17, 2003 20:40

most of the politics is just people having history chats.
most of the debate is between embryonic partie structures that will give you all in one generation the same shite.
well it won´t.

There is a global conflagoration happening.
and you all caught the flu.
didn´t you?

by Phuq Hedd Fri Jan 17, 2003 21:08

it's not news, it's just trolling. I doubt that it's even Joe posting.

by Brian Cahill Fri Jan 17, 2003 21:21

If it was really an SWPer posting they would have used the term "anti-capitalist" movement and not "anti-globalisation".

by ? Fri Jan 17, 2003 22:25

what does anti-capitalism mean?
how is it different to
anti-globalisation?
(I´m doing a leaving cert essay and any answers would help).

by wow Sat Jan 18, 2003 00:40

The writer who calls himself/herself "by ?" raised the only interesting point in the entire thread, when the following question was posed: "what does anti-capitalism mean?
how is it different to
anti-globalisation?"

It probally wont get an answer, or at least one that makes any sense. Some of the bright sparks seem to be interested in who joeboy is! Is there only one Joe in Ireland? Of what importance is that one way or the other? Is the name copywrited or belonging to someone so important?

Its amazing how quickly many 'socialists' resort to calling for more censorship all the same, I suppose its easier for one thing than having to think or to have to come up with logical answers.

by hunter - pfln Sat Jan 18, 2003 01:08

i think the answer to antic-cap vs anti-global lies in the word capitalist. many anti-globalist are not anti-capitalist in the sense that they want the capitalist system as a hwole overthrown, they believe in something which cannot exist - ie capitalisim with a 'human face'. anti-caps on the other hand, reject the capitalist sysytem outright, and seeks its overthrowal. ie a fundamental shift in the economic basis of society - to use marxist terms. im not even gonna get into the argument about the swp being the 'only serious anti-war force' - if you honestly believe that, then you are niave.

by hunter - pfln Sat Jan 18, 2003 01:13

"that they **don't** want the capitalist system as a whole overthrown"

sorry im tired

by SWP watcher Sat Jan 18, 2003 01:15

despite having the late late show audience littered with SWMers you didn't mention the word 'socialism' once!

What are you guys building? the anti-war movement and anti-globalisation movement, or are you trying to build a revolutionary socialist party? If you are serious about your revolutionary party you would take a step back and look at the types that you are orientating towards in these 'movement'

FREE ADVICE: try to build the workers' movement, try to build socialist opposition to capitalist war. Let liberals, crusties, hippies, college lecturers do their own thing.

by watching the watchers (and wasters) Sat Jan 18, 2003 02:16

Swp watcher forgot to exclude,low paid workers, the unemployed, single mothers and a few other 'undesirables' from his list.
I have cricisms of the swp from time to time for example during the Nice referendum. But to give some credit to them together with some independent activists etc they are building the anti-war and anti-globalisation/capitalist movements
(I dont care which term you split hairs over!)

The Socialist Party and Sinn Fein have done nothing serious to build the movements above apart from "mobilising" a handfull of their activists to make a fleeting guest appearance on some anti war marches and anti capitalist/globalisation marches. The original poster is absolutely correct about that part even if he/she is a swp member.

by Brian Cahill Sat Jan 18, 2003 15:06

Some anonymous idiot is trying to start yet another row between the Socialist Party and the SWP and trying to drag in anyone else who wanders past. Now there are plenty of reasons for people on the left to disagree but we-do-more-than-you-on-the-war isn't one of them. So don't rise to the bait.

Both the Socialist Party and the SWP have prioritised the issue of the war - doing street stalls, taking part in protests, issuing leaflets, trying to establish the IAWM, appearing on the television (Richard, Aoife) and on the radio (Joe H) and more.

So get on with it and leave the trolls to themselves.

by Paul Kinsella - Irish Anti War Movement (Personal) Sat Jan 18, 2003 21:21 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9, Eire 087-9748511

As a member of the Irish Anti Movement (IAWM), but speaking in a personal capacity, watching the watchers (and wasters) you're yet again talking bullshit. Didn't you (A) Bother to read ANY of the replies to the original extremely ignorant and bigoted post, and (B) Better still if you were a genuine activist, and bothered to attend any of the various Anti war actions across the country organised by the IAWM and various other groups, you would have seen many people from many different political groupings, and none.

by nobel laurette Sat Jan 18, 2003 23:15

The post above has turned out to be no worse than most posts on indymedia these days. But what is Blisset up to ? If it is a troll that wrote the origional post praising 2 swp members who put forward anti war points on a prime time tv slot, what is he/she trying to disrupt? Who is JOE C? and why does it matter so much if it is not JOE C who wrote it?
The writer called watcher or something or other seems to dislike most other groups he may very well be a bigot. As for the Kinsella chap he occasionally gets it right and puts a good post together. But on this occasion he got it wrong again, he seems to think any criticism amounts to being a bigot. This is simply an inability to analyse or even to think critically. This can of course be rectified but it will not happen by simply attending meetings all over the country. Most of the other writers were not bad at least no worse than most stuff on indymedia. As for the SWP I am not their greatest fan, but they are doing some work on the issue of the war, why do Watcher and Kinsella have such a problem with this fact? or is it bigoted to say this as well?

by Kathy Mon Jan 20, 2003 11:52

They are only involved in Anti War for what they can get out of it. Otherwise they would not have set up their front organisation Youth Against War.
Theres some hairy youths in it.

Carry on recruiting!